Why do wingnuts think this election is close?

Sunday, September 9th, 2012 · 7 Comments »

So that Assrocket guy at Power Line published an unintentionally hilarious post yesterday entitled, “Why is this election close?” I’m not really happy about linking to it, but it’s getting a lot of attention from normal people who are wondering what’s wrong with this man’s head. Here’s his opening paragraph:

For a long time I have been predicting that Mitt Romney would get the Republican nomination, and that he would then win the general election. I have said that the election will be reasonably close–demographic realities dictate that all national elections will be reasonably close, for the foreseeable future–but not a squeaker; more like 2004 than 2000. Given President Obama’s dismal record, that seemed like a safe prediction.

I saw this lede on Memeorandum yesterday and actually Laughed Out Loud. Because it’s ridiculous. There’s no way in hell Romney is going to win. Republican operatives—and I mean real operatives, not wingnut blowhards online—know it. That’s because it’s their job to, you know, count. And pay attention to what is actually happening in the world, as opposed to whatever fantasy is being projected on the walls of their colon.

Has John Assrocket (or whatever his name is) really spent the past several months believing that Robot Mitt is going to win?

ETA: Actually, there is some chance Romney could win, but only if the billionaires buy it for him. That’s the only wild card. If Koch, et al, decide to pour hundreds of millions into non-stop TV ads in swing states, then it’s possible. And Romney has already shown that he’s willing to go big with the lying (he’s been running ads for weeks accusing Obama of sending gold Cadillacs to every welfare queen or some such nonsense). So it could happen.

Filed under: Various and Sundry · Tags:

7 Responses to “Why do wingnuts think this election is close?”

  1. eilish says:

    They’re hoping it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Presumably, swinging voters will hear “Romney will win” and say “Oh, I’d better vote for him, then. Don’t want my vote to go to waste.”
    Usually, people spinning this line point to opinion polls, showing the candidate’s alleged popularity as proof. As we know, Republicans don’t bother with proof. This is just another unsupported assertion in a campaign that has been based on them.
    The scary thought is that it could work.

  2. Unree says:

    Vote stealing and voter suppression were big in 2004, less big in the general election of 2008. I guess the question for 2012 is did the Republicans learn how to suppress + steal more effectively since 2008, or does 2008 demonstrate that the suppression + stealing of 2004 is over.

    For now I predict that Obama will beat Romney decisively: around 52-53% in the general election and a bigger win in the Electoral College.

  3. quixote says:

    I just heard something this morning that one of the Kochs (or is that spelled Kooks?) plans to pour $700,000,000 on Romney.


  4. Nina M. says:

    Pouring billions into ads won’t do jan schijt. Remember, television ad time is a finite resource, and a lot of people are competing for it – not just the presidential campaigns, but all the down-ballot Congressionals that want to air ads too, plus the ad time bought by third party groups. At a certain point all the ad time is bought out and that’s it. Unless the Kochs can purchase a 25th and 26th hour of the day, that is…

    I think the weak link here is voter suppression and ballot tampering.

    My guess is the primary purpose of Assrocket’s post is to keep up the pretense for soliciting donations. Bills must be paid, and there are plenty of lost souls on the campaign payroll — the mouthpieces have to keep saying Mitt has a chance or people will stop giving.

    Such a thoroughly ugly business.

  5. Briar says:

    The Dems are putting the “neck and neck” idea about to keep their base energised. Because there is so little reason for vote for Obama, voting against Romney is their best tactic.

  6. JeanLouise says:

    SuperPAC ads have been running against our liberal, extremely hardworking senator for over a year and those millions of dollars in ads have brought a Tea Party cartoon candidate within striking distance of our serving senator.

    But, in the end, I think it’s the PAC money for the GOTV effort, voter suppression, crooked GOP election officials and disappointment in Obama that’s going to keep the presidential election a tossup.

  7. Topper Harley says:

    Perhaps they were emboldened by Intrade: Last month, Intrade gave Obama a 56-57% chance of re-election. At the same time, Nate Silver was only predicting, IIRC, a 66% chance.

    Of course, in the last week, both sources have increased his odds by 10%. As you say, even though it’s all but over, there’s bills that need to be paid until November.